Fine Tuning

[dcalling]

2.) We only fine tune things (cars, etc) because of uncompromising, external constraints; God has no uncompromising, external constraints that he must satisfy, so on a theistic worldview we do not expect to see a finely tuned universe.

2.) Regardless of expectation, a finely tuned universe implies the existence of an intelligence beyond our universe. [However, the point in question still must be demonstrated.]

Agreed

3.) There is no evidence that the physical constants of our universe could have been anything other than what they are, so fine tuning has no case.

3.) We can mathematically model universes with different constants, and they generally are unstable or unsuitable for life. [Is this factually correct? Does anyone have sources?]

I don't have the actual source, just remember saw a video on youtube about quantum physics, and one of the scientists who proposed multiverse theory said that.

4.) Many constants are certainly not finely tuned, such as the speed of light.

4.) Certain physical constants must be accurate to within 1 part in 10^(many) for life to be possible. [Is there a source for this? How can we be sure we're characterizing all possible forms of life?]

I used to wondering the same. I am guessing since life is so complicated, we can only draw from our current experiences.

5.) Calculations concluding that the universe is finely tuned are fallacious because the physical constants were initially defined in the Big Bang. The Big Bang occurred on a scale so small that quantum mechanics must be considered; the Big Bang involved so much mass (all mass in the universe) that effects of relativity must be considered. As of yet we lack the physical language to unite quantum mechanics with relativity, so we lack the ability to describe the Big Bang and that is why we return absurd calculations which imply fine tuning.

5.) [I can think of no rebuttal to this.]

Point 5.) is the reason I've rejected fine tuning up to this point. This makes the matter inconclusive, so either apologists are aware of this and yet are arguing on behalf of fine tuning nonetheless, or else apologists are certain of their position because of some other argument that I've not yet seen.

Current scientific field are in disarray due to quantum physics, no one really understand it, we are only propose theories and use statistics.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If I build a building and use brick, concrete, steel, glass, wood, copper, etc it does not follow that the next building I build I have to use totally different materials.

This comes down to the same strawmanning nonsense that says "similarities don't prove common ancestry!!!"

Indeed, it does not. However, the point is not just in the mere similarities. The point is in the pattern thereof. And the pattern DOES imply common ancestry.

I will use mostly the same type of materials just in different combination, locations and proportions.....just like God did with DNA. Your example fails.....

DNA, from an engineering perspective, is a completely redundant, energy- and resource consuming, inexplicable mess.

From an evolutionary perspective, however, it makes complete sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think I know what nihilist virus means. Sometimes, a complete redesign is to be preferred.

I wouldn't even go that far as to speak about "complete redesign".
I'ld simply stick with the nested nature of life.

It makes absolutely no sense, in context of "designed" things, that subsequent iterations of the product design, also include all the baggage from previous designs - many of which aren't required and even literally unnecessary.

Like chickens with (inactive) DNA to create teeth, for example.
Or moles with active DNA to build non-functioning eyeballs that are even covered by layer of skin.

I read why there are serious faults in our bodies because humans were not re-designed. Something about the prostate and there is something too about the nerve that coils round the chest and goes back somewhere.

Ow, there are many of such things. And not just in humans.
I already mentioned two above, about the moles and the chickens.
As for humans:
- mouth is too small to fit all the teeth (which is why wisdom teeth can hurt like hell and oftenly need to be removed)
- spine isn't fit to walk erect, which causes backpains in the majority of the population at some point in their life.
- etc.

It seems the incremental changes due to natural selection give us a body that could have been better if it had been redesigned.

Yeps. And better in just about all aspects. The biggest, imo, being energy and resource efficiency.

Take the mole for a great example of exactly that...
It needs to spend energy and resources to build eyeballs that don't even work!
It can't even open his eyes, because the eye-lid is just a closed up layer of skin.

That makes absolutely NO sense in a designed system. It makes PERFECT sense in an evolved system using natural selection.

Your example of using the same materials for buildings may be all right for buildings but for animals including men, it may not be that appropriate.

Exactly.
It's not about the materials, but about the pattern the materials are used in. About the blueprint of the building.

A proper analogy would be to not design a blueprint for an apartment building and another one for a simple house. But rather, by taking the blueprint of the apartment and making a few tweaks to build it as a house - inevitably leading to walls that don't need to be there, doors that don't open, stairs that don't go anywhere, etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You must be talking about the vagal nerve.....what about it?
My A&P was 40 years ago, took a few minutes to recall some of this......

It's the laryngeal nerve.

It needs to go from the back of the brain, to the front of the neck. In other words, it needs to be only a few inches long. And it does that in all creatures. Including the giraffe.

Instead of taking the shortest route (which would be the energy/resource efficient route), it goes down into the chest, loops around the aorta and then goes up again.

Consider your phone landline in your house.
Suppose it enters your house 2 meters where it needs to be inserted in your phone (or modem, or whatever). But instead of taking the shortest route, the cable guy takes it all the way up to the roof and down again, only to then end up roughly where it started, to insert it in the phone.

Would that make sense to you? Would you pat him on the back and say "good job, great design"? Or would you rather file a complaint at the phone company, to inform them of the incredibly stupid amateurism displayed by one of their workers?

 

[Ed1wolf]

This thread is going to be about honesty, specifically intellectual honesty. Please only post here if you're genuinely interested in pursuing the truth with no interest in the outcome favoring your current beliefs.

I've only seen two, perhaps three, of my arguments truly fail on these forums, but all of them were attacks on God or the Bible and not defenses of atheism and so at this point my worldview has gone completely unchallenged. I'm not very satisfied with that, so I want to address fine tuning because I think that is perhaps the one thing that lends the strongest case to theism.

Now, I think that the fine tuning argument can be shot down immediately because it is an argument from ignorance, which is a fallacy. But in the interest of pursuing truth I'm dropping the formalities so that you all can present the best informal case for fine tuning. But that doesn't mean you can simply tell me to look at the stars and somehow know there has to be a God. Please... not that informal.

The case for and against fine tuning would be the following bullet points:

1.) Formally, the argument is a fallacy as mentioned above.

1.) [I can think of no rebuttal to this.]

How is it an argument from ignorance?

nv: 2.) We only fine tune things (cars, etc) because of uncompromising, external constraints; God has no uncompromising, external constraints that he must satisfy, so on a theistic worldview we do not expect to see a finely tuned universe.

No, we know that God does have constraints, ie logic and His own moral character among probably other things that we don't know about. Also, there may be only one type of universe that can have free will beings and operate according to primarily natural laws and that produces spiritual growth in order to destroy evil forever.

nv: 2.) Regardless of expectation, a finely tuned universe implies the existence of an intelligence beyond our universe.

[However, the point in question still must be demonstrated.]

See above.

nv: 3.) There is no evidence that the physical constants of our universe could have been anything other than what they are, so fine tuning has no case.

3.) We can mathematically model universes with different constants, and they generally are unstable or unsuitable for life. [Is this factually correct? Does anyone have sources?]

Fred Hoyle noticed that changing the ground state nuclear energy levels just one percent prevents life from existing. He said it "looked like super intellect has monkeyed around with physics, biology and chemistry." It has to be suitable for intelligent life and accomplish the purposes I stated above.

nv: 4.) Many constants are certainly not finely tuned, such as the speed of light.

But it has to be that speed for intelligent beings to be able to see into the deep past in real time. That is evidence that whatever designed the universe wanted the intelligent beings He created to see evidence for Him.

nv: 4.) Certain physical constants must be accurate to within 1 part in 10^(many) for life to be possible.

[Is there a source for this? How can we be sure we're characterizing all possible forms of life?]

I admit this only applies to the form of life that we know exists. Not all possible life forms for which there is no evidence.

nv: 5.) Calculations concluding that the universe is finely tuned are fallacious because the physical constants were initially defined in the Big Bang. The Big Bang occurred on a scale so small that quantum mechanics must be considered; the Big Bang involved so much mass (all mass in the universe) that effects of relativity must be considered. As of yet we lack the physical language to unite quantum mechanics with relativity, so we lack the ability to describe the Big Bang and that is why we return absurd calculations which imply fine tuning.

How do you know that all mass in the universe existed at the BB? QM could not have produced the BB because QM needs an interval of time to occur but there was none at t=0.

nv: 5.)

[I can think of no rebuttal to this.]

See above.

nv: Point 5.) is the reason I've rejected fine tuning up to this point. This makes the matter inconclusive, so either apologists are aware of this and yet are arguing on behalf of fine tuning nonetheless, or else apologists are certain of their position because of some other argument that I've not yet seen.

While the evidence is not definitively conclusive, it strongly points in that direction.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How is it an argument from ignorance?

Because it literally boils down to calling those things for which currently no explanations exist, as having a "supernatural origin". In the end, the "fine tuning" argument is exactly the same as "intelligent design" nonsense.

It is expressed in a multitude of ways, but it always boils down to exactly that: ignorance and incredulity.

Take the argument from complexity for example...
It is said that "things are to complex" to have evolved naturally.

But what does it mean to say that it is "to complex"?
It literally means that one doesn't understand it. So therefor it didn't happen. That's literally incredulity / ignorance.

Fine tuning is the exact same... It's not understanding why physics works the way it does and then call it "fine tuned", implying a "tuner". As if that makes you understand it.

It's ignorance and incredulity all the way down.

Fred Hoyle noticed that changing the ground state nuclear energy levels just one percent prevents life from existing. He said it "looked like super intellect has monkeyed around with physics, biology and chemistry." It has to be suitable for intelligent life and accomplish the purposes I stated above.

See? That's a great example of these appeals to ignorance and ill-understanding.
It's not having an answer to "why this energy level and not another?" and then jumping to "some agent must have done it".

That is not a logical or rational jump.

But it has to be that speed for intelligent beings to be able to see into the deep past in real time. That is evidence that whatever designed the universe wanted the intelligent beings He created to see evidence for Him.

First of all, due to the accelerating expansion of space, there will be a time in the future where light of distant stars and/or galaxies will simply not be able to reach us. Because the space between earth and those stars/galaxies will be expanding at a rate faster then the speed of light. So future cosmologists will look at the sky and see nothing but cold darkness outside of our milky way. They will think the universe consists of a single galaxy, while actually there are billions.

Also, I don't see how observing distant stars is, in any way shape or form, evidence of a god. I'ld say that it is evidence of....the existance of distant stars.

How do you know that all mass in the universe existed at the BB?

E = mc²

QM could not have produced the BB because QM needs an interval of time to occur but there was none at t=0.

The same goes for a god that "creates" or "causes" or "produces" a universe. All of which are actions that are temporal in nature.

While the evidence is not definitively conclusive, it strongly points in that direction.

How can any piece of data, EVER, point to an unsupported entity?
That's a contradiction in terms.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How is it an argument from ignorance?

dh: Because it literally boils down to calling those things for which currently no explanations exist, as having a "supernatural origin". In the end, the "fine tuning" argument is exactly the same as "intelligent design" nonsense.

It is expressed in a multitude of ways, but it always boils down to exactly that: ignorance and incredulity.

Take the argument from complexity for example...
It is said that "things are to complex" to have evolved naturally.

But what does it mean to say that it is "to complex"?
It literally means that one doesn't understand it. So therefor it didn't happen. That's literally incredulity / ignorance.

No, actually it is an argument from knowledge. Creating and fine tuning laws can only be done by a lawgiver. Even Eintstein said this. We know from experience that nothing other than an intelligent lawgiver can create laws and fine tune them. And actually I don't know anyone that just says things are complex and therefore cannot be explained by natural processes. The correct term is "SPECIFIED complexity". An example is DNA. Something is specified complexity if it contains information unrelated to the mode of transmission of that information. Just like language. A sentence written with ink communicates information that is unrelated to the chemical makeup of the ink or even that ink is used. It is the specified information contained in the sentence. And we KNOW that only intelligent minds can use language like codes like DNA. No natural process can create specified complexity, ie language.

dh: Fine tuning is the exact same... It's not understanding why physics works the way it does and then call it "fine tuned", implying a "tuner". As if that makes you understand it.

It's ignorance and incredulity all the way down.

No, see above.

ed: Fred Hoyle noticed that changing the ground state nuclear energy levels just one percent prevents life from existing. He said it "looked like super intellect has monkeyed around with physics, biology and chemistry." It has to be suitable for intelligent life and accomplish the purposes I stated above.

dh: See? That's a great example of these appeals to ignorance and ill-understanding.
It's not having an answer to "why this energy level and not another?" and then jumping to "some agent must have done it".

That is not a logical or rational jump.

No, see above the laws of physics.

ed: But it has to be that speed for intelligent beings to be able to see into the deep past in real time. That is evidence that whatever designed the universe wanted the intelligent beings He created to see evidence for Him.

dh: First of all, due to the accelerating expansion of space, there will be a time in the future where light of distant stars and/or galaxies will simply not be able to reach us. Because the space between earth and those stars/galaxies will be expanding at a rate faster then the speed of light. So future cosmologists will look at the sky and see nothing but cold darkness outside of our milky way. They will think the universe consists of a single galaxy, while actually there are billions.

By the time that happens, there probably will not be any humans around. The earth is designed only to be habitable for humans for a relatively short time compared to the age of the universe.

dh: Also, I don't see how observing distant stars is, in any way shape or form, evidence of a god. I'ld say that it is evidence of....the existance of distant stars.

Being able to observe distant stars allowed us to confirm the BB theory and the expansion of the universe which is taught in the Bible thereby confirming the divine origin of both the universe and the Bible.

ed: How do you know that all mass in the universe existed at the BB?

dh: E = mc²

How does that prove that all the mass of the universe existed at the BB? The evidence points to at t=0, there was no mass.

ed: QM could not have produced the BB because QM needs an interval of time to occur but there was none at t=0.

dh: The same goes for a god that "creates" or "causes" or "produces" a universe. All of which are actions that are temporal in nature.

There is some evidence for more than one dimension of time, God could have operated from this other dimension of time to create this universe. Also, since time is just the relative positions of objects to each other in space, there is nothing that would prevent causation from occurring by time not existing for non quantum cause.

ed: While the evidence is not definitively conclusive, it strongly points in that direction.

dh: How can any piece of data, EVER, point to an unsupported entity?
That's a contradiction in terms.

God is an entity that has a great deal of support, see above for just a little of it. There is much more besides the small amount of evidence for God that I have presented here.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Creating and fine tuning laws can only be done by a lawgiver. Even Eintstein[sic] said this.

That is just an argument from authority, but citation needed.

We know from experience that nothing other than an intelligent lawgiver can create laws and fine tune them.

What experience are you referring to, and how does it support your claim?

And actually I don't know anyone that just says things are complex and therefore cannot be explained by natural processes. The correct term is "SPECIFIED complexity".

That term comes from a proponent of intelligent design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

Specified complexity is a concept proposed by William Dembski and used by him and others to promote the pseudoscientific arguments of intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept can formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex, in specific senses defined by Dembski. Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent - a central tenet to intelligent design, which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory. The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.

It is not anything that we have to accept as a "correct term".

And we KNOW that only intelligent minds can use language like codes like DNA.

We actually know otherwise. The chemical machinery of protein production uses the codons, and that machinery is not intelligent.

But DNA is not a "language-like" code. There is nothing like meaning in the codons as there is in this sentence. Protein production is just a simple chemical process, and that doesn't require intelligence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Creating and fine tuning laws can only be done by a lawgiver. Even Eintstein[sic] said this.

eud: That is just an argument from authority, but citation needed.

Everyone gets knowledge from authorities at some point in their lives. It comes from M. Berkowitz's book "Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man."

eud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

Specified complexity is a concept proposed by William Dembski and used by him and others to promote the pseudoscientific arguments of intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept can formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex, in specific senses defined by Dembski. Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent - a central tenet to intelligent design, which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory. The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.

It is not anything that we have to accept as a "correct term".

The poster, Dogma Hunter, was claiming to be quoting from theistic scientists that said that complexity cannot be explained by natural processes. But I have never heard any theistic scientist make that claim, the correct claim by theistic scientists is that specified complexity cannot be explained by natural processes. Evidence that it is has been proven to be mathematically unsound? Wikipedia proves nothing.

eud: codons, and that machinery is not intelligent.

But DNA is not a "language-like" code. There is nothing like meaning in the codons as there is in this sentence. Protein production is just a simple chemical process, and that doesn't require intelligence.

No, it conveys information unrelated to the mode of transmission, just like language. As long as the ribosome receives the correct codon message, then the protein will be constructed correctly irrespective of how that message is transmitted. Just as the information in language can be transmitted thru spoken words or written words, the same message can be communicated.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Everyone gets knowledge from authorities at some point in their lives. It comes from M. Berkowitz's book "Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man."

Page number? An actual quote?

The poster, Dogma Hunter, was claiming to be quoting from theistic scientists that said that complexity cannot be explained by natural processes. But I have never heard any theistic scientist make that claim, the correct claim by theistic scientists is that specified complexity cannot be explained by natural processes. Evidence that it is has been proven to be mathematically unsound? Wikipedia proves nothing.

That's why three references were given for that claim at Wikipedia:

1. Rich Baldwin (2005). "Information Theory and Creationism: William Dembski". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2010-05-10.
2. Mark Perakh, (2005). Dembski "displaces Darwinism" mathematically -- or does he?
3. Jason Rosenhouse, (2001). How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 2001, pp. 3-8.

The last link breaks, but here is the paper:

http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf

No, it conveys information unrelated to the mode of transmission, just like language. As long as the ribosome receives the correct codon message, then the protein will be constructed correctly irrespective of how that message is transmitted. Just as the information in language can be transmitted thru spoken words or written words, the same message can be communicated.

That has nothing to do with establishing the need for intelligence. A machine, even a chemical one, suffices for the use of this "message".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Everyone gets knowledge from authorities at some point in their lives. It comes from M. Berkowitz's book "Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man."

eud: Page number? An actual quote?

I don't know the page number but the full quote is "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified."

eud: "Information Theory and Creationism: William Dembski". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2010-05-10.

• Mark Perakh, (2005). Dembski "displaces Darwinism" mathematically -- or does he?

• Jason Rosenhouse, (2001). How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 2001, pp. 3-8.

The last link breaks, but here is the paper:

http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf

I am not qualified to explain the math, but nowhere does Dembski refer to just complexity as evidence for a designer even your links confirm that he was referring to only specified complexity as evidence for a Designer. So Dogma Hunter was wrong about theistic scientists just using "complexity" as evidence for a designer.

ed: No, it conveys information unrelated to the mode of transmission, just like language. As long as the ribosome receives the correct codon message, then the protein will be constructed correctly irrespective of how that message is transmitted. Just as the information in language can be transmitted thru spoken words or written words, the same message can be communicated.

eud: That has nothing to do with establishing the need for intelligence. A machine, even a chemical one, suffices for the use of this "message".
eudaimonia,

Mark

A machine by definition is the product of an intelligence. Thanks for confirming my argument.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't know the page number but the full quote is "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified."

He's saying that he doesn't believe in a personal God. He isn't making the claim that you think.

A machine by definition is the product of an intelligence. Thanks for confirming my argument.

machine

1. an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

I don't see it there.

Besides, I'm referring to protein production as a machine by analogy. In the sense I use the word, it certainly does not have to be the product of an intelligence, and it is a logical fallacy to think that you can prove anything (other than popular uses of a word) by dictionary definitions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I don't know the page number but the full quote is "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified."

eud: He's saying that he doesn't believe in a personal God. He isn't making the claim that you think.

I know he doesn't believe in a personal God, but I can't help if he doesn't express himself consistently. Only a personal being can create laws.

ed: A machine by definition is the product of an intelligence. Thanks for confirming my argument.

eud: machine

1. an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

I don't see it there.

Besides, I'm referring to protein production as a machine by analogy. In the sense I use the word, it certainly does not have to be the product of an intelligence, and it is a logical fallacy to think that you can prove anything (other than popular uses of a word) by dictionary definitions.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Ok provide an example of a machine not created by an intelligence and of course, you cannot refer to living things because that would be assuming what we are trying to prove.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Only a personal being can create laws.

Natural "laws" aren't laws in the legal sense.

Ok provide an example of a machine not created by an intelligence and of course, you cannot refer to living things because that would be assuming what we are trying to prove.

I'm not going to play your silly game.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Yekcidmij]

This thread is going to be about honesty, specifically intellectual honesty. Please only post here if you're genuinely interested in pursuing the truth with no interest in the outcome favoring your current beliefs.

I've only seen two, perhaps three, of my arguments truly fail on these forums, but all of them were attacks on God or the Bible and not defenses of atheism and so at this point my worldview has gone completely unchallenged. I'm not very satisfied with that, so I want to address fine tuning because I think that is perhaps the one thing that lends the strongest case to theism.

Now, I think that the fine tuning argument can be shot down immediately because it is an argument from ignorance, which is a fallacy. But in the interest of pursuing truth I'm dropping the formalities so that you all can present the best informal case for fine tuning. But that doesn't mean you can simply tell me to look at the stars and somehow know there has to be a God. Please... not that informal.

The case for and against fine tuning would be the following bullet points:

1.) Formally, the argument is a fallacy as mentioned above.

1.) [I can think of no rebuttal to this.]

2.) We only fine tune things (cars, etc) because of uncompromising, external constraints; God has no uncompromising, external constraints that he must satisfy, so on a theistic worldview we do not expect to see a finely tuned universe.

2.) Regardless of expectation, a finely tuned universe implies the existence of an intelligence beyond our universe. [However, the point in question still must be demonstrated.]

3.) There is no evidence that the physical constants of our universe could have been anything other than what they are, so fine tuning has no case.

3.) We can mathematically model universes with different constants, and they generally are unstable or unsuitable for life. [Is this factually correct? Does anyone have sources?]

4.) Many constants are certainly not finely tuned, such as the speed of light.

4.) Certain physical constants must be accurate to within 1 part in 10^(many) for life to be possible. [Is there a source for this? How can we be sure we're characterizing all possible forms of life?]

5.) Calculations concluding that the universe is finely tuned are fallacious because the physical constants were initially defined in the Big Bang. The Big Bang occurred on a scale so small that quantum mechanics must be considered; the Big Bang involved so much mass (all mass in the universe) that effects of relativity must be considered. As of yet we lack the physical language to unite quantum mechanics with relativity, so we lack the ability to describe the Big Bang and that is why we return absurd calculations which imply fine tuning.

5.) [I can think of no rebuttal to this.]

Point 5.) is the reason I've rejected fine tuning up to this point. This makes the matter inconclusive, so either apologists are aware of this and yet are arguing on behalf of fine tuning nonetheless, or else apologists are certain of their position because of some other argument that I've not yet seen.

I think the argument has statistical problems. When talking about the universe as a whole, we only have 1 observation. The argument seems to confuse precision and range of values with a distribution of probabilities in order to draw a conclusion about likelihood. It's simply assumed that the physical constants could, with equal probability, be any value on the real number line. But why think that?

The argument goes something like: if the constant [insert constant here] had been different by [insert value here], the universe wouldn't exist. The probability of the constant being accurate to X decimal places is 1/X. This assumes a uniform distribution for X from negative to positive infinity. But this is an assumption as we only have one observation (this universe), which means we really know nothing about the distribution of possible values. Why not think the distribution is normal, and the values we observe are the likely values? Or something else?

To conclude that the values of the physical constants were unlikely, it seems to me that we would have to establish what IS likely and that the constants we observe have a statistically significant difference. But this is impossible with only 1 observation.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Natural "laws" aren't laws in the legal sense.

Neither me nor Einstein said they were.

eud: I'm not going to play your silly game.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What silly game?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Neither me nor Einstein said they were.

Only laws in the legal sense need a lawgiver.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

What silly game?

The word game.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Only laws in the legal sense need a lawgiver.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Evidence?

 

[Ed1wolf]

The word game.

Evidence I am playing a word game?